What does the imputed righteousness of Christ mean to you?

I don't think I've ever heard two people describe the imputed righteousness of Christ the same way. Its not a phrase that exists in the Bible. So, my question is, how would you describe it? What does it mean to you?

Last edited by alt731; 01-30-19 at 04:40 PM.

I don't like being corrected, but don't worry about that, do it anyway. I'll get over it.

The Following User Says Thank You to alt731 For This Useful Post:

The issue has to do with the overuse of that word that totally Latinises the New Testament: righteousness. We have discussed this before. Are you claiming that the word 'impute' or its equivalent term in Greek or Hebrew is non-existent in the Bible? --Bob

Are you claiming that the word 'impute' or its equivalent term in Greek or Hebrew is non-existent in the Bible? --Bob

I'm claiming the phrase, "imputed righteousness of Christ" or even just "the righteousness of Christ" is not used by Paul when explaining justification. Paul speaks of imputed righteousness. He uses the phrase "righteousness of God" a lot. But we don't find the exact words, "imputed righteousness of Christ".

I don't like being corrected, but don't worry about that, do it anyway. I'll get over it.

I might agree that "iimputed righteousness" is a misnomer on the basis that the English word 'righteousness' has no equivalent in Greek or Hebrew. The Latin etymology basically signifies "full of right, ALL right, and nothing but right" as a permeating quality. That, of course, can only apply to God Himself but the Greek and Hebrew do not have an a equivalent of a word that can only apply to God and is never used of man.

So this is really "imputed justification", "imputed rightness", "imputed justness". In 2 Cor. 5:21 it refers to the fact that in Christ's person and work we are made into the justification of God. I will have more to say on this, for now suffice it to say that I wish the false word "righteousness" was eliminated from our English bibles, as well as "love" and a whole lot of other words.

On the meaning of "imputed" I will begin with Strong: https://biblehub.com/greek/1677.htm . I am not going to debate whether the word is used in the New Testament because I simply don't see the point: it is. Just look up all the references for the Greek ellogeˇ or any derivative of it.

For any dikaiˇsis reference in the whole Bible, I strike the words "righteous" and "righteousness" out of my Bible as legitimate translations in the English. Just, justice, right, rightness, justification, these are legitimate translations but still can mislead due to English bias.

"The righteousness of God" in the NT is the justification of God, which can also legitimately be called the imputation of God.

I might agree that "iimputed righteousness" is a misnomer on the basis that the English word 'righteousness' has no equivalent in Greek or Hebrew. The Latin etymology basically signifies "full of right, ALL right, and nothing but right" as a permeating quality. That, of course, can only apply to God Himself but the Greek and Hebrew do not have an a equivalent of a word that can only apply to God and is never used of man.

So this is really "imputed justification", "imputed rightness", "imputed justness". In 2 Cor. 5:21 it refers to the fact that in Christ's person and work we are made into the justification of God. I will have more to say on this, for now suffice it to say that I wish the false word "righteousness" was eliminated from our English bibles, as well as "love" and a whole lot of other words.

On the meaning of "imputed" I will begin with Strong: https://biblehub.com/greek/1677.htm . I am not going to debate whether the word is used in the New Testament because I simply don't see the point: it is. Just look up all the references for the Greek elloge├│ or any derivative of it.

For any dikai├│sis reference in the whole Bible, I strike the words "righteous" and "righteousness" out of my Bible as legitimate translations in the English. Just, justice, right, rightness, justification, these are legitimate translations but still can mislead due to English bias.

"The righteousness of God" in the NT is the justification of God, which can also legitimately be called the imputation of God.

Bob

Thanks for your comments Bob. Yes, I agree that imputation is certainly in the Bible. I personally don't mind the word "righteousness" as opposed to "rightness" because, in English, "righteousness" connotes moral rightness and I think that is what the scripture is talking about, whereas the word, "rightness," in English, can pertain to other things also. But I agree, God is right in every possible respect, including, obviously, morally.

But in the verse you mentioned, 2 Cor. 5:22, it doesn't use the term "imputed" at all. It uses the term "made" or "become." And, it doesn't speak about the "righteousness of Christ" either. It speaks about the righteousness of God in Christ.

To me that's significant. I'm not convinced at all that 2 Cor. 5:22 is talking about imputation. Romans 4:3-6 clearly speaks about imputation. But since 2 Cor. 5:22 says, "become" or "made" I'm of the opinion that its speaking about the new birth. A cross reference would be, "created in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:10). The new man is, by nature, righteous. The matter of imputation is subtly different. Imputation refers to God counting the believer righteous, rather than making the believer righteous.

What do you think?

I don't like being corrected, but don't worry about that, do it anyway. I'll get over it.

1) 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
(1Co.1:30,31)

2)In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this [is the name] wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.
(Je.33:16)

I think these texts clearly show us Who is our righteousness before God.

When was this righteousness given to us as our righteousness before God?

Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
(2Ti.1:9)

Vadim

Hello Vandim, thank you for your response.

Do you believe there is a difference between being imputed (counted/reckoned) righteous, and being made righteous?

With respect to 1 Cor. 1:30-31 and Jer. 33:16, I guess the question I'm looking for clarity on, is, how is Christ made unto us righteousness? In what sense is Jesus, Jehovah our Righteousness?

Some people say, "he is our righteousness because he died for our sins." They point to verses such as, Galatians 6:14, "far be it from me to boast save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." Other people, such as Bob, say, "Christ's whole person and work is credited to us in such a manner that God...views the elect...as Jesus Christ Himself." I asked him where the Bible says that, and await his reply.

As for my own position: I affirm the doctrine of imputed righteousness. I believe we (God's people) are counted righteous on account of the work of Christ alone. I also believe that the new man of righteousness (begotten of the Holy Spirit) has been made righteous. He has the mind of Christ.

I don't believe that Christ is our righteousness merely because he died for our sins, although all spiritual blessings flow to us on account of his cross. As I say, I also believe Christ must be our righteousness in the sense that we are made righteous in him: "created in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:10).

But I'm trying to figure out whether other people are saying the same thing in different words, or whether they're saying a different thing...

Last edited by alt731; 01-24-19 at 06:28 AM.

I don't like being corrected, but don't worry about that, do it anyway. I'll get over it.

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2Co 5:21 (KJV)

Look at this verse above. Jesus was made sin.. But we know He didn't become sinful in and of Himself when He was crucified:

"But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:" 1Pe 1:19 (KJV)

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Heb 9:14(KJV)
The same gr. word for "made" (4160 poieo) in Acts 2:36 is the same word for "made" in 2 Cor. 5:21.

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Act 2:36(KJV)

Now if we want to hold to the position that Christ literally became a sinner on the cross OR that we were made righteous by some other way than IMPUTATION, we must also hold to the position that Jesus became the Lord and Christ. And we know that is not true. It's true that His human flesh was created within the womb of Mary, but that's as far as it goes when it comes to Christ.

Imputation is the only logical explanation. And imputation is an IMMANENT act within the mind of God. Therefore it is also in Eternity as God is Eternity.

Thank you for the response Brandan, it gave me something to think about.

I agree that "made" (G4160 poieo) implies the imputation of our sins to Christ. But if you look again at the Greek, you'll notice that Paul doesn't actually use that same word again when he says that we are "made" the righteousness of God in him. He uses the word, "ginomai" (G1096), a completely different word, not even with the same root.

Darby helpfully translates the passage with two separate English words, to indicate a difference of Greek words in the original:

"Him who knew not sin he has made [G4160 poieo] sin for us, that we might become [G1096 ginomai] God's righteousness in him." (2 Cor. 5:21)

Darby also helpfully puts "we" in bold to indicate that there is emphasis on it in the Greek.

Given that Paul clearly differentiates between concepts at other times by using separate words (e.g. 1 Cor. 13:8 where he puts a difference between prophecy and knowledge, on the one hand, which shall be done away - katargeo G2673 - and tongues on the other, which shall cease - pauo G3973) I would say he could very well be doing the same here. He is clearly saying that the sins of God's people are imputed to Christ (made sin), at the cross, but then he uses a different word when saying that God's people become (ginomai G1096) the righteousness of God in Christ.

I am sure we both agree that Paul affirmed that God's people are "created in Christ Jesus" at the new birth (Eph. 2:10). But if this is so, then it seems there is another possibility in Paul's thinking, for the meaning of "become" or "made" (ginomai G1096) in 2 Cor. 5:21 to consider.

Last edited by alt731; 01-24-19 at 11:59 AM.

I don't like being corrected, but don't worry about that, do it anyway. I'll get over it.

I believe after our resurrection, we will have a righteousness imparted to us - and we will no longer have this body of death - we will have a new body and will be incapable of sinning. But as for now, our righteousness in the sight of God is by imputation.

I believe after our resurrection, we will have a righteousness imparted to us - and we will no longer have this body of death - we will have a new body and will be incapable of sinning. But as for now, our righteousness in the sight of God is by imputation.

I see. I believe scripture clearly teaches that God's people are created anew in this life. They are a new creation. And, the new man of righteousness is a spiritual man, in this world. Scripture says: "the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and these things are opposed one to the other, that ye should not do those things which ye desire" (Galatians 5:17). In other words, there is, in the Christian, a conflict.

But this verse also teaches us the nature of the new man of righteousness: he is a spiritual man. It is the spirit that lusts against the flesh. And again scripture speaks of the new birth, saying: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6)

And the new birth, as you would admit, happens in this life. So the new man, born of God, exists in this life, and is a righteous man, by nature (spiritual nature). Scripture says, "We know that every one begotten of God does not sin, but he that has been begotten of God keeps himself, and the wicked [one] does not touch him" (1 John 5:18).

In other words, it simply cannot be that the righteousness of the saints is merely imputed, in this life. They are righteous, by nature. They are created in Christ Jesus, born of the Spirit of God. How could they be any other way?

I believe that you are separating what scripture holds together. The faith of the believer really is who the believer is. The old man of depravity is one who doubted the goodness and infinite power of God. The new man is one who trusts in the goodness and power of God. In other words, when God creates his people in Christ, he is giving them faith. And this faith is righteous. So, those begotten of God have entered a state of righteousness, through their faith. And their faith is reckoned for righteousness.

I don't like being corrected, but don't worry about that, do it anyway. I'll get over it.

I'm not denying that the regenerated believer does not have a new nature - I suppose you could call that imparted righteousness (like Don Fortner does) or indwelt righteousness but I'd rather not. This new person has a battle that wars within - the spirit wars against the flesh - and vice versa. The regenerated believer has been ordained to walk in good works! But this has nothing to do with justification or Christ's robes of rightness that the Father sees by imputation. If one were to claim that justification is based on righteousness imparted - vs. imputed (and I'm not saying that you are claiming this), that would not be any different than the papal doctrine of infused righteousness. There is a book by John Brine devoted to imputation in our library archives: https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=760

The Act of making us Righteousness, is to be considered. This is not inherently, but imputatively. Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works (r). It is not the transfusion of Christ's Righteousness into us. For that is impossible. We do not become the Subjects of it. As he did not become the Subject of Sin, by being made Sin for us: So we do not become the Subjects of Righteousness, by being made the Righteousness of God in him. Sin which Christ was made was not inherent in him: And Righteousness which we are made, is not inherent in us. Sin is ours subjectively, and not Christ's: And Righteousness is his subjectively, and not ours. The Imputation of Sin to him, effected no internal Change in him: Nor does the Imputation of his Righteousness to us, produce any internal Change in us. A due Consideration of the Nature of the Act of Imputation, will enable us to see this clearly. Imputation is an internal Act of the Mind, whether it be of Sin or Righteousness, and, therefore, it cannot be productive of any inherent Change in the Object upon whom it passes. As Christ was not made sinful, by the Imputation of our Sins to him: so we are not made holy, or internally righteous, by the Imputation of his Righteousness to us. For, as the Imputation of Sin to him did not defile him: So the Imputation of Righteousness to us does not sanctify us. The Reason of which is clear, Imputation is not a Transfusion of that which is imputed, whether it be Sin or Righteousness; but it s reckoning, accounting, or placing to Account, and esteeming thereupon, as was before observed. The Object of this Act, therefore, must still be inherently the same as before, notwithstanding that Act passing on him, because it is not a transient; but an internal Act, which cannot produce a physical Change, in its Object. It is certainly true, that as God makes Christ Righteousness to us: So he also makes him Sanctification unto us; but not in the same Way. He makes him Righteousness to us, by the Imputation of his Righteousness to our Persons: He makes him Sanctification to us, by a Conveyance of Grace from him, into our Souls. So that his Grace, which is conveyed into our Hearts from him, becomes ours subjectively; but his Righteousness, which is imputed to us, does not so become ours. It is still in him, as its proper Subject, and not in us. And in the divine Imputation of this Righteousness to us, it is not supposed, that God accounts it our personal Righteousness, or wrought out by us; but it is freely granted, and constantly asserted, that he esteems it, as it really is Christ's Righteousness, or wrought out by him: Nor, is it thought, that God considers this Righteousness as ours subjectively, or inherent in us; but that he reckons it to be the Righteousness of Christ subjectively, as it truly is. He accounts it ours, no otherwise than by free Gift, and gracious Imputation. And, therefore, this Doctrine contains in it nothing absurd, or any false and mistaken Conception, concerning God, Christ, or us.

I'm not denying that the regenerated believer does not have a new nature - I suppose you could call that imparted righteousness (like Don Fortner does) or indwelt righteousness but I'd rather not. This new person has a battle that wars within - the spirit wars against the flesh - and vice versa. The regenerated believer has been ordained to walk in good works! But this has nothing to do with justification or Christ's robes of rightness that the Father sees by imputation. If one were to claim that justification is based on righteousness imparted - vs. imputed (and I'm not saying that you are claiming this), that would not be any different than the papal doctrine of infused righteousness. There is a book by John Brine devoted to imputation in our library archives: https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=760

The Act of making us Righteousness, is to be considered. This is not inherently, but imputatively. Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works (r). It is not the transfusion of Christ's Righteousness into us. For that is impossible. We do not become the Subjects of it. As he did not become the Subject of Sin, by being made Sin for us: So we do not become the Subjects of Righteousness, by being made the Righteousness of God in him. Sin which Christ was made was not inherent in him: And Righteousness which we are made, is not inherent in us. Sin is ours subjectively, and not Christ's: And Righteousness is his subjectively, and not ours. The Imputation of Sin to him, effected no internal Change in him: Nor does the Imputation of his Righteousness to us, produce any internal Change in us. A due Consideration of the Nature of the Act of Imputation, will enable us to see this clearly. Imputation is an internal Act of the Mind, whether it be of Sin or Righteousness, and, therefore, it cannot be productive of any inherent Change in the Object upon whom it passes. As Christ was not made sinful, by the Imputation of our Sins to him: so we are not made holy, or internally righteous, by the Imputation of his Righteousness to us. For, as the Imputation of Sin to him did not defile him: So the Imputation of Righteousness to us does not sanctify us. The Reason of which is clear, Imputation is not a Transfusion of that which is imputed, whether it be Sin or Righteousness; but it s reckoning, accounting, or placing to Account, and esteeming thereupon, as was before observed. The Object of this Act, therefore, must still be inherently the same as before, notwithstanding that Act passing on him, because it is not a transient; but an internal Act, which cannot produce a physical Change, in its Object. It is certainly true, that as God makes Christ Righteousness to us: So he also makes him Sanctification unto us; but not in the same Way. He makes him Righteousness to us, by the Imputation of his Righteousness to our Persons: He makes him Sanctification to us, by a Conveyance of Grace from him, into our Souls. So that his Grace, which is conveyed into our Hearts from him, becomes ours subjectively; but his Righteousness, which is imputed to us, does not so become ours. It is still in him, as its proper Subject, and not in us. And in the divine Imputation of this Righteousness to us, it is not supposed, that God accounts it our personal Righteousness, or wrought out by us; but it is freely granted, and constantly asserted, that he esteems it, as it really is Christ's Righteousness, or wrought out by him: Nor, is it thought, that God considers this Righteousness as ours subjectively, or inherent in us; but that he reckons it to be the Righteousness of Christ subjectively, as it truly is. He accounts it ours, no otherwise than by free Gift, and gracious Imputation. And, therefore, this Doctrine contains in it nothing absurd, or any false and mistaken Conception, concerning God, Christ, or us.

I guess the short answer to you on this one is: when it comes to the matter of imputed righteousness, my opinion is still being formed. On some issues, I feel I have a fully formed opinion. Take, for example, limited atonement. I believe that Christ died only for his elect people, to redeem them from all their sins, and in no sense, whatever, did he die for anyone else. Another example would be God's sovereignty: I believe that God is controlling everything, and making everything happen. I also believe he decreed everything before time began.

But as for the nature of justification, I just know I'm righteous in Christ. I don't know how it all works.

Surely this verse implies that what is begotten (or created) in the new birth, is a believer: "For all that has been begotten of God gets the victory over the world; and this is the victory which has gotten the victory over the world, our faith" (1 John 5:4).

That which is begotten gets victory
+
This is the victory: our faith
=
That which is begotten is one who has faith in God

As for justification, wasn't it the faith of Abraham that was reckoned for righteousness? That is, into a state of righteousness? And if it was his faith, then it was what God begat.

So Abraham's imputed righteousness was his imparted righteousness.

But that is not to say it was not in Christ. Paul says we are "created in Christ Jesus" and the new believer is a a spiritual man, begotten of God, a, "member of the body of Christ" spiritually speaking. The trust the believer has, in God, is, so to speak, the mind of Christ. The new life that the believer has, is the life of Christ in him. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life: he that believes on me, though he have died, shall live" (John 11:25).

So that which is imparted to the believer is this righteous faith, in Christ. And God imputes that faith for righteousness.

Last edited by alt731; 01-24-19 at 06:31 PM.

I don't like being corrected, but don't worry about that, do it anyway. I'll get over it.

It is by faith that the elect are reckoned righteous within THEIR mind (not God's).

There are four aspects of justification for God's elect.

1) Justification from Eternity / Eternal JustificationGod's will to justify His people is the justification of His people. God has always viewed His people as justified as God sees all things at once, the beginning of time until the end, He has absolutely predestinated all things and views all things as if they have already occurred. God never hated His people, but has always loved them. How in the world can God love something that is not PERFECTLY RIGHTEOUS in His sight? The answer is He cannot, and thus must have always seen His people as perfectly righteous. John Gill in my opinion is the champion of this doctrine, but unfortunately he was inconsistent and did not take other doctrines such as sanctification to this logical conclusion as well. I think of Eternal Justification as Justification in the MIND of God before the foundation of the world.

2) The work of justification in time - This took place in Christ's earthly ministry, death, and resurrection. This work in time was the climax in the justification of God's people. Justification was constituted here, and it is these events in time performed by Christ which all true believers look to for their justification. All believers, when asked WHEN they were justified will always point to the work of Christ on the cross (SOLO CHRISTO).

3) Justification at ConversionThis "justification by faith" is mainly the experience of being justified in the conscience of the believer. All of the elect are brought to faith in time and experience the peace and assurance of justification at their conversion. When I say this, I mean that when men are brought to faith in Christ, the OBJECT of their justification is Christ on the cross. They do not look to their faith as the basis of their justification but simply recognize it as the means by which God reveals their justification to them. When I speak of Justification by faith alone (Sola Fide), I only mean experiential justification and am in no way implying this is the actual justification of God's people forensically speaking. To do so would mean to say that justification is based on the faith of the individual, and that is in my mind no different than the doctrine of "infused righteousness" taught by the RCC - a heresy that cuts at the core of the Gospel.

4) Justification at JudgementThis justification of God's people on Judgment day is the actual declaration before all men that His people are perfectly righteous in the sight of God. This will be a glorious day and all of God's people who have experienced their justification by faith look forward to this event with anticipation.

The Following User Says Thank You to Brandan For This Useful Post:

Even then the English word righteousness would not apply to our internal state--only God is righteous. The fact that we once were slaves of sin forever cancels the remotest possibility that we will ever righteous even in eternity.

The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Higby For This Useful Post:

It is in no matter correct to assume that the words 'made' or 'imparted' in the English can automatically be interpreted to be internal right-eou-eou-eou-euosness (a permeating quality of right allowing for nothing wrong whatsoever to be present). All of the different Greek words of various sorts on this (which do differ in meaning, as you state) imply something like 'given'or 'given over to' and in no way can be assumed to imply 'internally transformed' in and of themselves, whether Christ internally transformed from non-sin to nothing but sin or the believer internally transformed from nothing but sin to non-sin. Christ in all His merits (both person and work) is given to us freely (imparted) and our sin in all its filthiness is given over to him freely (imparted) to obliterate in the manner purposed by God.

Hi Brandon, what you said on eternal justification sounded very good to me, and if that's what eternal justification means, I believe I accept the doctrine. I also accept that God will openly count his people righteous, before all, in the judgement. So we're agreed on that too.

There is much to consider here, and I wish I knew more. But I'm going to present what I think is right and true, and feel free to correct me (preferably from scripture) if you believe I'm wrong. I find the best correction is usually a good exposition of scripture.

Originally Posted by Bob Higby

Even then the English word righteousness would not apply to our internal state--only God is righteous. The fact that we once were slaves of sin forever cancels the remotest possibility that we will ever righteous even in eternity.

Hi Bob. I think you have to be careful, because what you're saying comes across as though you're simply denying the doctrine of the new birth.

The new man of righteousness is born of the Spirit of God. He is a spiritual man. I quoted the proof texts above, so I won't repeat them here. But you see, for you to say that he is not righteous, is to say that the Holy Spirit begat a wicked sinner. That's simply not true. That which is born of God cannot sin, because His seed abides in him.

And this comes back to Brandan's point, too. If justification is God's act of counting (imputing/reckoning) righteousness to his people, which I believe we're agreed on, then the question immediately presents itself: why doesn't God count the righteousness of the new man (which he has by nature, being born of the Spirit of God, 'created in Christ'), to the new man?

Couldn't this be the way in which God's people have the righteousness of Christ? Their sins are imputed to Christ at the cross, who died for them, made atonement, redeemed their lives from the grave, and gives them his life, his resurrected life, in the new birth. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25). The righteousness of God's people is Christ's life in them. Scripture says, "who has been delivered for our offences and has been raised for our justification" (Romans 4:25).

The believer experiences the cleansing of his conscience by Jesus' blood (Hebrews 9:13-14), but I don't believe we experience imputation. Imputation is just counting or reckoning on God's part. It isn't an experience.

I would say we were redeemed at the cross, but not justified at the cross. We're justified by Jesus' blood in that our justification, given to us through His Holy Spirit, is given to us on account of Jesus' blood / on account of the redemption.

It is the new man of righteousness to whom God imputes righteousness from eternity, not the child of wrath. The old man of sin is hated by God from eternity - and God nailed him to the cross because he hated him so much / because he loved the new man of righteousness so much.

The language of being clothed in God's righteousness indicates that whereas, by nature, we are sinners, now, through the redemption and the gift of a new nature, righteousness is reckoned to the believer.

I think we also disagree about history. The Roman Catholic Church certainly doesn't agree with my doctrine. My doctrine says that the righteousness of the saints is the natural righteousness they have, having been born of the Spirit of God. They are new creatures, righteous creatures, and they depend, always, at every moment, at every second, on God's Spirit for all their strength. Jesus said, "Without me, ye can do nothing" (John 15:5). He is the vine and we are the branches, and we abide in him. Jesus is Jehovah our Righteousness.

The RCC holds to the following on Infused Righteousness, according to Wikipedia:

Infused righteousness forms the basis for the doctrine of justification in the Roman Catholic Church and is rooted in the theology of Thomas Aquinas. The doctrine states that through keeping the commands of Christ, regular confession and penance, and receiving the sacraments, God's grace/righteousness is "infused" in believers more and more over time, and their own "righteousness in the flesh" becomes subsumed into God's righteousness

That seems pretty works-oriented to me! The Bible says that God's people are born of the Spirit of God without any effort from them at all.

I also see the doctrine that Bob espouses (concerning the imputed righteousness of Christ) as an invention of that free-willing heretic, and subtle snake, Melancthon, who through craft deceived Luther into accepting it, who mistook it for the wonderful revelation he had years earlier, of that great truth that God's people are justified by faith, and not by works. Bob Gundry (a highly regarded Reformed scholar), in his book The Old Is Better, says exactly the same thing, that Luther did not espouse this doctrine to begin with, but got it from Melancthon later.

So whereas you see my doctrine as coming from the works-espousing RCC, I don't believe my doctrine has anything to do with works. And instead I see your doctrine as coming from a snake of a man, a Free-Willer, and a man who wouldn't have known what the new birth was if you clubbed him over the head with it, Malancthon.

Last edited by alt731; 01-30-19 at 05:04 PM.

I don't like being corrected, but don't worry about that, do it anyway. I'll get over it.

Bottom line, God counts His people as righteous because of Christ - and HIS work - not upon anything being performed within the individual. This quote by John Gill sums up what I believe.:

I depend wholly and alone upon the free, sovereign, eternal, unchangeable and everlasting love of God; the firm and everlasting covenant of grace, and my interest in the persons of the Trinity; for my whole salvation: and not upon any righteousness of my own, nor any thing in me, or done by me under the influences of the holy Spirit; nor upon any services of mine, which I have been assisted to perform for the good of the church; but upon my interest in the persons of the Trinity, the person, blood and righteousness of Christ, the free grace of God, and the blessings of grace streaming to me through the blood and righteousness of Christ; as the ground of my hope.